Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Dear Uncle Sam

Dear Uncle,

Yesterday was April 17. This was a very important day for our nation. And of course you know why... yesterday was your annual payday! You worked hard all year; you kept us safe; you put in extra hours when necessary; you were a responsible steward of company assets. As your boss, I, for one, am happy to sign your two trillion dollar paycheck. And, as the traditional saying goes whenever anyone is given a large sum of money, don't spend it all in one place!

Now, since you're only paid once a year, I know you're acutely aware of when your payday is. However, many Americans might be confused why payday fell on the 17th instead of the traditional 15th of April. In fact, this is the 3rd time in the past 5 years that the April 15th deadline has slid. Why? Because the District of Columbia, a state-in-training if you will, established a legal holiday called Emancipation Day in 2006 that is celebrated on the 16th of April every year, in remembrance of President Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation on April 16, 1862. Of course if the 16th falls on a weekend, then Emancipation Day might be moved forward to the 17th or back to the 15th. In the event that the 15th falls on a Saturday, I guess Emancipation Day would be held on the 17th and tax day would be bumped all the way to the 18th. Confused? I sure am! Brian Regan's "i" before "e" rule comes to mind in the context of trying to guess the tax filing deadline: on weekends, and holidays, and all throughout May, and you'll always be wrong no matter what you say! But, regardless of which day tax day is these days, I think it is entirely fitting that your payday comes right at the same time we celebrate freedom from slavery in the United States.

Alright Uncle, I'm going to lay off the sarcasm now and give you some honest, open feedback. In Corporate America, it's very common to have a formal review and assessment of all employees in an organization to determine performance against objectives set at the beginning of the year. So let's consider this your Performance Planning and Review--your PPR since you like three letter acronyms so much.

I want to be frank with you this year because my personal contribution to your paycheck hurt a bit more this year than in the past. There is one standard rule for filing taxes that is almost universal: Those who qualify for rebates typically file in January the second they get their W2's. Anyone who ends up owing is going to file on the 15th of April (or whatever emancipated day the tax deadline has been shifted to). This year, I filed on the 17th. Can you guess why? This is the first time I've ever ended up owing beyond my year-long withholdings. And unfortunately, I owed quite a bit. But I should be happy to co-sign your paycheck, right? If I end up owing, that means I've had a good year financially... usually. This year wasn't one of those for me. Why did I owe? Actually, it was a matter of paperwork--your paperwork. I followed your form to calculate how many exemptions to claim a year ago. I followed all of the instructions meticulously and came up with a number that apparently under-calculated my withholdings--by quite a bit. In fact, I even reviewed the form with my HR director and she couldn't see any mistake I'd made on the form that would have caused the discrepancy. The lesson? Talk to my accountant before formalizing my exemptions in the future, rather than depending solely on one of your worksheets.

Now, Uncle, I know you're thinking, "Whether you pay your taxes now or pay them throughout the year, you end up paying the same amount." And I would agree. However, when I have to pay a large lump sum at one time, there is more awareness and pain in the signing of that check. So, with that awareness and as your employer, I'd like to do some Progress Planning and make sure your objectives for this coming year are clear.

But before we get to the planning, let's first cover your review. Since no one want's to focus on the negative, we'll quickly gloss over that part. As for your departmental finances: In 2011, you earned a whopping $2.4 trillion in base salary and commissions. However, you spent over $3.7 trillion in departmental expenses. That means that for every dollar you earned, you borrowed 54 cents to help finance your bills. In business, some debts are necessary for growth. Some personal debts are also necessary for a home, for an education, or for personal transportation. These necessities often help provide growth for the future as well. Honestly, I'm not quite sure that governmental growth is one of our corporate aims, but let's assume that your deficit was directed toward that end.

So let's review that growth. You've been involved in the creation of 1.2 million jobs--a number that looks great on paper and would be phenomenal in a strong economy; however, job creation following a recession is expected to be high. The unemployment rate has dropped from 9% to 8.5%--although these numbers are hotly contested and don't necessarily include all eligible job seekers in the nation who desire employment. $77 Billion was spent on the education of our youth, helping to provide for their future, and gains were seen in average standardized test scores for math and secondary level reading. About $777 Billion was spent on Social Security. This is one expense that will continue to grow, and we expect some solutions in the coming year. $740 Billion was spent in protecting our clients from foreign and internal threats to their safety and in extending those same rights to freedom and liberty to the people of the world where appropriate.

These are some of our core principles, and we expect to take a hit financially to maintain some of those necessary programs. We won't dwell on the salaries of those in your department or the GSA department. Let's just assume that your annual report will show all of the benefits and growth that we will enjoy as the United Corporation of America in the coming years. I look forward to your presentation to the board.

So let's move on to the planning phase of your PPR. In 2011, you added some significant debt to our organization for which we will be held responsible. So the growth we experience in 2012 must provide additional revenues to allow us to keep the banks off our backs. Let's talk about two significant numbers: 15.2 and 1.3. The first number, 15.2, represents the number in trillions of dollars that our corporation owes to lenders. Now I know in big governments like ours, you can substitute the words billion for million and trillion for billion without much consequence. Big is good, right? But let's put that 15.2 number in context. If we spent $1 million every day since the day Jesus was born, we would not have spent the amount of money that our corporation owes its investors--in fact, we would have only spent a measly $700 billion, or the amount we gifted without expectation of repayment to the banks of America in the massive bailout a few years ago. Furthermore, if you stacked up our national debt in $100 bills, we would be looking at a pile of cash covering a football field and standing as tall as Lady Liberty's left shoulder. But we're never going to pay off our corporate debt if we focus on that monster debt only.So let's look at the second number, 1.3. This is the number in trillions of dollars that we added to our debt in 2011. Now, in your defense, I know you're arguing that this was an approved deficit for the year to bring about corporate aims and provide growth for the future. But the number 1.3 should be quite familiar to you by now. Our deficits in trillions for 2010, 2011, and 2012 respectively were 1.3, 1.3, and 1.3. At least 2009's deficit was different: 1.4 trillion. But if we continue this trajectory of growth-motivated spending each year, we will double our corporate debt in a decade--never mind beginning the daunting task of working it off.

We have to embrace the reality that we did not incur our corporate debt in one year. And we won't pay it off in one year, either. But if we don't change things soon, we'll be adding to our debt just to pay off the interest on our debt. If we made our clients and board members pay 100% taxes next year, we wouldn't even be able to pay off our entire debt with that income. In other words, we as a company owe more money than is made in the entire nation in a single year. Can you feel a bankruptcy breathing down our necks? I guess we can always become partners with Greece... perhaps they can bail us out the way we did our banks.

In most organizations, there is a culture that allows for mistakes. Often a warning is given or an employee might be put on probation when there is misconduct. Sometimes, there is a zero-tolerance policy in regards to some rule or regulation. Fortunately for you, this is not one of those situations. For now, your job is not in jeopardy.

But, in your case, we are looking at many consecutive years of abuses to department spending. I will concede that if you get past that nasty 1.3/1.4 number, you'll get to more reasonable deficit numbers such as 459 billion and 161 billion for 2008 and 2007. But if we again pulled out our Jesus million-a-day calculator, we'd find some interesting data. To incur the deficit debts from 2007, 2008, and 2011, we would have had to start spending one million a day in 1570 AD, 750 AD, and 1550 BC respectively. That takes us back to the days of Ivan the Terrible, Papal Rome, and the building of Stonehenge. History never seemed so exciting, right? Or so expensive?

So let's move past your financial mismanagement trend by giving you yet another slap on the wrist. Let's promise ourselves that this coming year will be different. And let's try really hard not to think about that debt interest or what will happen when our creditors stop lending money and start calling for repayment in full.

Our company is rather young in the context of history. We are 236 years old this year. In the Who's Who of History, we are only #65 in terms of empire/dynasty duration. In fact, the average duration of empires that spanned periods longer than ours is 321 years. So to make it into the top of the pack, we've got to make sure our finances allow us to survive into the 22nd century. So, planning for a company that will stand the test of time and let us pass up our next contender in Who's Who (the Second Bulgarian Empire), what are we going to do to get into the green in the coming years?

Recently, there's been some talk about giving you a raise. Would that help? The so-called Buffet Rule, that would raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans, seems to have garnered quite a bit of support. 6 out of 10 Americans think it is a good idea. But if 6 out of 10 Americans decided that Rhode Island was such a small and insignificant state that we should sell it off to Russia to pay for a few days of your department's financial spending, does that make it right?

I guess I'm a little concerned about all this talk about raising taxes to pay for your massive budget. And there's been little talk about cutting back. In fact, we've just added a new $150 Billion annual budget line item in our new and improved health care program. Now Uncle, I don't want to begin to debate that one. But the businessman in me sees continued and increased spending, but constant revenues. I don't have to be a mathematician to sense doom in that formula.

So I want to propose an idea, a plan that could be modified upon to be adapted to our corporate needs and culture. The success of this program has clearly been shown through solid research and is one that is guaranteed to succeed. Why? Because it's God's financial plan. Through the prophet Malachi, God said:
"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."
The first idea here is simple. Pay your tithes and be rewarded with a return on your investment. How does this apply to our organization? Pay your taxes and you get something in return. What? Protection from tyranny. Governing laws that allow our families to more fully enjoy the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Laws that make the company a much better place for all employees. Services that can help my family during troubling times. Parks and recreation that are for the enjoyment of all. John Locke (the British philosopher and not the mysterious character from Lost) said, "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom." So when the windows of Washington are opened, what should precipitate forth? Preserved and enlarged freedoms.

George Washington, our hero and exemplar, also cautioned about government and its role, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!" So, to be clear, your paycheck is not granted to allow you to further restrain or abolish our clients. Rather, your role, granted by the people and for the people, is to take the collective voice of the people and establish common rules and regulations where necessary for the greater freedom of your customers. As the classic adage goes, the customer is always right!

Back to Malachi. What is a tithe? The word tithe, or tithing, is derived from the word tenth. In other words, God institutes a flat tax among his citizens--a flat tax of 10%. Can you imagine how many IRS agents would be out of a job if our tax code were that simple?

But let's look at our Income Tax history for a moment to see how our vision of federal taxes has changed over the years. The Constitution clearly indicates that the states can tax their citizens, but the federal government did not originally share that right. In fact, the federal government was to be supported financially by proportional contributions from the states. This supports the concept of United States that are to govern themselves. A federal government serves as mediator when state laws conflict and also serves to direct a national military and other services or programs that are necessary outside of a state's jurisdiction.

After amending the Constitution, the federal government began to tax individuals rather than the states. Originally, income was not a man's wages or his salaried earnings from employment. Rather, income was defined as earnings from investments, property, and other sources not connected to a man's livelihood and his ability to provide for his family. Over time, this too has changed.

And it continues to change. Our lawmakers are now debating and voting on a law that would raise taxes on certain incomes that were previously taxed at lower rates so as to encourage investment, to stimulate the economy, and to encourage the pursuit of happiness, which includes personal and family wealth.

Uncle, I feel you could strongly benefit from reading a dissertation written by Ezra Taft Benson, a former Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower on The Proper Role of Government. This should be required reading for every young American. At bare minimum, it should be required reading for any man or woman who takes an oath of office. Benson states:
"No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me."
So if our company is insistent upon taxing ALL citizens, we must do so fairly and treat those funds with respect when determining how to spend them. There are a LOT of worthy programs out there that could be enacted through the government. But do they pass this simple test? Benson continues to say:
"If I could only FORCE the ignorant to provide for themselves, or the selfish to be generous with their wealth! But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Beyond that point, where shall the line be drawn? Who is to say 'this far, but no farther?' What clear PRINCIPLE will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and yet farther into our daily lives?"
You might say that Benson is on board with God's plan of taxation. If Warren Buffet wants to pay more taxes, that's wonderful. But, despite what he or any man may think about the tax burden that should be placed upon one class of people, we must tax fairly without respect to individual biases based on religion, wealth, race, or other class distinction.

God says 10% is enough to meet his departmental budgets, which include the construction and maintenance of temples and worship meetinghouses, the printing of His holy word, welfare programs, missionary efforts, providing an education for His children, and carrying on His work throughout the world. God's taxes or tithing funds are treated as sacred. Under the inspiration of the Spirit, a council of brethren carefully discusses and plans when and how to use these funds. Though they hold the responsibility for apportioning out these funds, these men are not without any accountability for this responsibility. A careful and thorough annual audit, by an independent firm, shows how these are used and serves to prevent mismanagement. You probably won't find many GSA scandals of gross negligence and mismanagement when it comes to God's money.

It certainly helps that God's government payroll is pretty small. In Christ's church, there are needs for some practical tools that help further His work, such as websites, family history tools, public relations, media, and more. So there are some programmers, social media experts, video editors, and the like on the payroll. But most of Christ's staff is voluntary. How does He accomplish this? Let's just say there are a lot of Warren Buffets in Christ's church. There are millions of individuals who donate of their time and of their substance for the building up of Christ's kingdom. With a lay clergy and generous donations from the wealthy Warren Buffets of Christ's church, God has no need to raise His taxes above a flat 10%.

But that is 10% for everyone, irrespective of class, gender, race, wealth, or any other distinguishing class. The widow, though her 10% may seem insignificant compared to Warren Buffet's, still contributes her mite, and feels a sense of contribution and sacrifice to her maker. There is great beauty in this principle. Essentially, there are no freeloaders.

Now in your tax code, there are many who make so little money that, not only do they not pay anything in taxes, but they also receive credits that end up giving them free money. Their effective tax rate, far from 10%, is some negative percentage. Now if I'm one of the wealthier American's paying 30+ percent of my income and see this happening, I probably don't want to pay a dime more than I have to. I might not evade paying taxes, but I will certainly be looking for any loophole I can find to avoid paying anything more than my exact requirement.

God, on the other hand, seems to inspire a great deal more patriotism than that. Missionaries for his church pay, out of their own pockets, over $10,000 to leave behind family, girlfriends, educations, sports, and much more for two years to proselytize and help the people of the world. Without the generosity of J. Willard Marriott, the founder of the hotel chain with the same name whose donations provide for the airfare of missionaries to and from their missions, that cost of $10,000 might increase by one or two grand. Can you imagine soldiers, rather than receiving wages or tuition assistance for college, paying $10,000 or $12,000 to serve in the army for two years for the opportunity to risk their lives for the spreading of liberty across the world? I can't.

So why do the Marriott's of the world feel so inspired to contribute to God's company? First and foremost, they love Him and find joy and fulfillment in sacrificing for Him. But there are some other reasons. They know the money is carefully and wisely spent. It generally is being used for the best of causes. And there is little to no overhead. In other words, my dollar contribution to the poor and destitute of Africa will be fully used to feed a hungry soul rather than to help cover the paychecks of those involved in coordinating the humanitarian efforts.

Finally, God does not go into debt. There are no deficits. Granted, His expenditures may exceed the income from tithing alone, but other charitable contributions fully cover any other considered expenses. If there isn't enough money in the tithing budget for a temple in the Slovak Republic this year, it won't be built until the money is available. That is, perhaps, the most important principle that can be learned from our God. Debt may occasionally be a necessary evil. But God's kingdom, or empire, will be #1 on the Who's Who list in terms of duration as far as financial security is concerned.

Now, Uncle, I don't feel that I've been rambling. There has been good cause for everything I've written. But I've written long enough. I think there is something for you to learn from The Church of Jesus Christ, Incorporated. In your department, it may not be possible to inspire lay Congressmen or volunteer executives. Your costs may be more than God's. You may have more overhead. But is it all necessary? Can you put any of your budget items up against Ezra Taft Benson's simple test before approving it for the next fiscal year? If the money isn't available to fund a commercial free broadcast of Big Bird to the nation, than either Bert and Ernie have to go or something else does. Money doesn't grow on trees, despite the fact that, at your discression, it can be printed on them. Might you consider making every citizen pay something, even if it is only a mite?

You certainly have some advantages, in that your citizens are loyal. They love their freedoms. They honor those who have fought for and established their freedoms. There is a great deal of untapped patriotism available to harness. If they the people feel that you are a wise steward of their hard-earned tax dollars, they might be even more generous and less apt to look for loopholes in the tax code. You might inspire more volunteers and be able to further cut costs. But it has to start with getting your departmental house in order, balancing that budget, and responsibly establishing laws and programs that help to enlarge freedoms rather than restrict those who are already struggling so much to make ends meet.

As your nephew, I love you. I am inspired by you. I owe so much to you. I'm not looking for a payout--an inheritance of any kind. But Uncle Sam--or, as Dr. Seuss might call you, Sam I Am--as your employer, I hope that you might take a lesson or two from the great I Am. I truly do want you to pass up the Second Bulgarian Empire--and the Babylonian, the Neo-Assyrian, the British, the Egyptian, and the Ottoman Empires. I'd love for you to pass up the Chinese and Mayan Empires, as well, and claim the #2 spot in Who's Who, right behind Christ's Kingdom, but I honestly don't think Jesus will wait that long before returning and reclaiming His rightful role as King and Judge of His people on Earth. Please remember your founding principles. Please be a responsible steward. And please do your best to make this next year more of a financial success than last.

Sincerely,
Your Nephew, Your Boss, and Your Faithful Citizen

Friday, March 30, 2012

Surgeon of Surgeons

Not too long ago, in response to a witty work-related tip that I sent out to our sales force, I received some humorous feedback asking if I’d ever considered screenwriting. My response to the sales rep?
"For a movie? No. For a ballet? Maybe. Try this on for size: This man meets this woman. And he wants to marry her. But he can’t marry her, because she’s already getting ready to marry somebody else… so they all dance around for a couple hours (do a lot of that up on the toes business).”
I’ll reaffirm what I told my co-worker when I said that I’ve never heard of Brian Regan!

But, seriously, the question asked in jest has stuck with me over the past few weeks. Although I smiled at the suggestion and immediately blew it off, I’m giving it some more thought and might just go for it. So, for your entertaining pleasure, I’ll now present to you a synopsis outlining my screenplay that could one day shake the foundations of Hollywood. (If you watch my storyboard movie, you can skip about halfway down the post to my follow-up.)

The Colony
In the wake of the nuclear fallout that destroyed ninety-five percent of the world’s population in World War III and rendered two-thirds of the surface of the earth toxic and unable to sustain life, survivors gathered to nine colonies scattered across the planet that were surrounded by giant, airtight bubbles protecting humanity from extinction. Survivors united under the leadership of those brilliant scientists who had created these life-saving colonies as they sought to rebuild humanity.
The Constitution of the former United States would be the foundation of this new society, maintaining liberty and preventing dictatorship in this fragile New World Order. Unfortunately, this sacred document had been destroyed along with Washington DC. The informational super-network once known as the World Wide Web had crashed midway through Armageddon and the Constitution now existed only in fragments. Relying on the memory of former professors and lawyers and those electronic and printed fragments surviving the apocalypse, the colonies’ leaders were able to reconstruct the governing document.Since the Constitution and the former United States had been founded upon a united belief in a Supreme Creator, the separation of Church and State was abolished in the New World Order, and one single religion was universally accepted and adopted in the colonies of the Order. The Church of the Elect espoused beliefs from dozens of different Christian sects and other world faiths.
In such a small and fragile society, a constitutionally-dictated judiciary was crucial in providing a constant, accurate interpretation of the governing laws. Nine gifted scientists, who had been instrumental in saving mankind, were unanimously elected to fill the nine seats of the Supreme Court. As the walls between the secular and religious worlds had been abolished, this high court was more commonly referred to as the Brotherhood, which also served as the high council that led the Elect of the church.Even in this utopian society, there were a small number of anarchists who yearned to claim power for themselves. These would-be dictators were both despised and feared among the Elect, who loathingly named these anarchists The Fallen. When discovered, the Fallen were banished from the colonies and released to the certain-doom of the outside world—the Fallout. To protect the Constitution from tampering by agents of the Fallen, the Brotherhood encoded the all-important document in a brilliantly devised, unbreakable digital code and uploaded the governing laws to computers that were stored in highly-secured vaults in each of the nine colonies. The Brother overseeing each colony would decode and read from the Constitution each week during worship services to teach the Elect the laws that would save them from another Apocalypse.The Elect lived happily and at peace, satisfied with their individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Among their rights was the Freedom to Teach—education was critical in restoring those technologies and comforts of the old world—the Freedom of Dress—persecution based upon fashion styles was strictly prohibited—and Freedom of the Pigeon—since doves had become extinct in the wilds of the Fallout, the pigeon, a species indigenous to the cities of surviving humans, had become the New World Order’s symbol of peace and deliverance. Every citizen of the Order had the Right to Wear Charms and maintained protection from Unlawful Church-induced Seizure.Generations passed in peace as the Brotherhood and the Elect struggled to rebuild what had been lost. But there arose a minority of those who did not consider themselves among the Fallen and, yet, felt that something was missing from their Utopian government. These troubled few desired to read and understand the Constitution for themselves so as to appease their qualms. Why was the document so carefully guarded? If the government was by the people and for the people, why could the people not have access to the praised parchment? Why did the Brotherhood elect its own? Shouldn’t the people do that? And why did the Brotherhood live in such extravagant palaces when the people lived in bland, uniform communal complexes?Among these self-proclaimed Constitutionalists was a young scientist named Liam Daltyne. A gifted orator, Liam spoke to small gatherings on street corners and in private settings, reminding the Elect that They the People held the keys of leadership and had the privilege and the responsibility to understand their civic duty as outlined in the Constitution. And they ought to be able to read and study its words for themselves to be responsible citizens.As the size of his crowds grew, Liam was thrilled with the hope that he might one day be able to hold the precious manuscript in his own hands and fully appreciate the democracy that his people had struggled to preserve. His hopes were dashed as Peacekeepers stormed his largest ever gathering, arresting dozens who did not resist in any way. Even as Liam protested, “What have we done wrong…?” he was thrown into prison as well. The trial was not public. It was presided over by the colony’s Supreme Justice rather than by a jury of his peers, and the verdict was swift. The maximum sentence was imposed: exile to the Fallout for the Fallen!
Liam and two of his colleagues, also banished from the Colony, foraged for food and water in the wilds of the Fallout for three days without success. The Fallout was desolate and devoid of life. The poison of standing water was visibly apparent in its blackish hue, and fresh water was nowhere to be found. On the fourth day, when all hope was lost, the three found shelter under a rocky outcrop and settled down to await the end. As night fell, Liam fought the urge to sleep as he a heard strange sound through the darkness which was shortly followed by a soft light emanating over the trees. He roused his companions and the three struggled toward the light. As they neared the strange light they came upon an unlikely band of men, other Fallen who had found a way to survive the Fallout!Liam and his companions regained their strength as they listened in awe, over a heavenly meal, to the story of their saviors, more than twenty men who had found each other after exile, discovered a source of fresh water, and established a secret smuggling network that allowed them to infiltrate the colony and steal supplies, food and animals, and life-sustaining medicines that slowed the deadly effects of the radiation.

Liam joined this band of outlaws, contributing to their smuggling operations, and he began to formulate a secret plan to break into the government vaults and steal a copy of the encrypted Constitution. Most of these smugglers were anarchists who wanted to bring down society rather than fix it. But Liam was able to convince them, with the promise of the money that could be obtained from those same vaults, to take part in his mission.A digital storage device was acquired, weapons were gathered, and blueprints of the treasury were obtained. The night for the raid arrived. As they breached the innermost vault of the treasury, alarms were triggered. Liam’s companion, John, was able to access the mainframe. Henry, Liam’s other companion, succeeded in obtaining a computer from a supply room. As Colony Peacekeepers flooded the treasury compound, Liam and his small band fled over the back wall. Three of their number were captured in the raid, but the band succeeded in escaping from the Colony with the treasure, the hardware, and, most importantly, the encrypted document.Over the next two years, Liam fully devoted himself to breaking the code so that the Constitution might be made publically available to the people. During this time, the Brethren succeeded in developing special body suits that enabled safe passage through the Fallout. Peacekeepers began to venture into the wilds in search of the outlaws. Tomas Lesse was appointed as Chief Commander of the Peacekeepers and led the task force that was commissioned to crush the Fallen rebellion. Through intense interrogation of the smugglers captured during the raid, Lesse was able to study and analyze the movements of the Fallen and nearly intercepted them on many occasions.

On the other hand, Daltyne’s influence continued to spread within the colony among a growing number of Constitutionalists who anxiously awaited the decryption of the document. With their help, Daltyne was able to bribe officials and move in and out of the colony in secret in order to gain access to computers and other necessary tools to aid him in his decryption. What ensued was a tale of intrigue, spies, bribes, narrow escapes, aliases, safe houses, covert communications, and more.Lesse’s hatred for Daltyne grew daily as he developed a personal vendetta against this lawless anarchist. With each passing day, the Elect were in increasing danger as Daltyne got closer to fully decoding the sacred document. When Peacekeeper agents confiscated some disturbing writings from the quarters of a known Constitutionalist, Daltyne’s plan to institute anarchy among the Elect became clear. The manuscripts contained an altered version of the Preamble and Article 1. By releasing a corrupted version of the Constitution to the populace, Daltyne was trying to incite chaos and confusion over the governing laws.
Lesse couldn’t simply exile the Constitutionalist traitor to the Fallout, as this man would surely join the ranks of the Fallen. So, for the first time since its establishment, the colony held an execution. Before a public crowd, the man was burned at the stake. The method for execution seemed so primitive, but the colony’s Supreme Justice and Brother assured Lesse that burning the traitor alongside the tainted manuscripts was necessary to send a message to other would-be Fallen.

Even with the might of the Colony behind him, Lesse was unable to crush out the rebellion that swarmed like ants under his feet. More manuscripts surfaced. More altered Articles and Sections of the Constitution were found. Executions became commonplace but failed to stamp out the rebellion with fear. The other eight colonies sent Peacekeepers to help in the manhunt. But secret factions of traitors and Fallen within the colony made their efforts to capture Daltyne virtually impossible.After Article 7 was found within the colony, the Elect had grown openly restless. There was a universal concern over rumored abuses of their democratic process. The Brethren were profiting from the hard labors of the common people and refused to allow any man to question their right to do so by a direct appeal to the Constitution, the document that was held in such revere during worship but was evidently so special that only the Brethren could read and interpret it. At first, such heresy was punished by placing the offenders in confinement. But now, such blasphemy was commonly heard in public.While rumors circulated about the Amendments to be released, the Brethren of the Supreme Court conspired with Tomas Lesse to make a final attempt to corner Daltyne. Peace and order might be preserved in their fragile society if they could only capture the heretic and expose him as a Fallen anarchist. The crusade for democracy received unlikely reinforcements in the man Henry Allen, one of the associates exiled alongside Liam Daltyne years before. In a secret meeting with Lesse, Allen, tired of hiding in the Fallout, offered to reveal the location of Daltyne’s safe houses in exchange for a life of privilege among the Peacekeepers. A careful plan was laid for the capture of Daltyne. Hundreds of Peacekeepers raided a safe house and took the public enemy in the dead of night. The home was set ablaze, and Liam Daltyne was thrown into the tower under the guard of fifty Peacekeepers.

Arrangements were made for the execution, again a burning at the stake. Justice would be swift. Doubling the guard, Lesse was taking no chances. The Constitutionalists had grown strong, and a rescue attempt was almost assured. But it did not come. The following day at dusk, Daltyne was led to his fate. The entire population of the colony was forcibly ushered into the treasury compound to witness the execution. But there was no resistance. There was only a great hush.The flames were stoked and Daltyne was strapped to a pole. As the flames licked at the feet of the Fallen revolutionary, his face etched with pain, and the man Liam Daltyne finally opened his mouth. Rather than crying out in pain, the man began to shout out to the people, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press…”

The Colony’s Supreme Justice demanded that Daltyne be silenced. Lesse repeated the order to his first in command. But the Peacekeeper backed away from the flames in fear.

Daltyne fought back a grimace and yelled even louder, “…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances! A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

Lesse looked at his rival in hatred and rushed at the man.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be…”As Lesse clasped his hands around Daltyne’s neck, the blasphemous words were cut off. Lesse cried out in agony as his clothing caught fire. But he refused to release his enemy, even after Daltyne went limp. As he struggled to maintain consciousness, Tomas Lesse became aware of shouting in the crowd above. Many voices in unison had replaced that of Liam Daltyne as papers were being thrown through the gathered crowd. Lesse knew what writing those papers contained.Lesse had been beaten. Democracy had been beaten. His beloved nation would give way to anarchy and another Apocalypse. Tomas Lesse had failed his people, and he had failed his God. His solitary prayer in that moment was to be granted deafness so as not to hear one more word of blasphemy.

But the chanting of the Elect only grew louder. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” And then Tomas’ prayer was answered.
*****

So it’s rough, I know. And maybe it’s a little too principled in nature—maybe too preachy. Honestly, most people would probably prefer watching ballet dancers dance around for a few hours—as long as there’s a lot of that “up on the toes” business. But I’ll leave it to you, my fans, to provide the real feedback here. So I’m going to the mail bag for this one. I’ve intentionally withheld the names of commentators so as to encourage open and uninhibited criticism.

Burning at the stake? Seriously? Society has torn itself apart and were going for middle-age martyrdoms?

Good point. In the future they probably have some mind probe that produces such mental agony as to kill a man rather than resorting to physical torture—much more humane. Suggestion noted. Will consider more technologically advanced justice in my rewrite.

Pigeon worship? Is that the best you could come up with? Granted, the “right to wear charms” was pretty humorous, but, with your pigeon gag, you were simply trying too hard.

Noted. I can’t really defend myself on that one. It may be a subconscious reference to the inner guilt I still feel over accidentally dismembering a pigeon years ago… Don’t ask!On behalf of PETA, we would like to officially extend the Award for Lifetime Ethicalism for your courageous and bold intervention in behalf of one of the most unethically treated animals on our planet. We would like to award you $10,000 toward the production of The Colony provided you consider changing the name to The Preserve. Long live Ethicalism! And Long Live the Pigeon!

Wow! Thank you so much for your generosity. I will indeed consider the name change. Does this mean I get to do a photo shoot?

On behalf of PETA, we would like to unofficially revoke the Award for Lifetime Ethicalism after being made aware of a certain maimed bird that has been on Trash Stamps and Worker’s Comp for the past eleven years due to work-related injuries sustained in the Baltic’s and its inability to establish a substantial position in the pecking order. We have reason to believe that this workplace injury was no accident, and we will be making a full inquiry.

Uh, never mind on that photo shoot. For the record, I would rather go neigh at kids than wear feathers, even for a Thanksgiving Day reenactment!I couldn’t help but notice some similarities between your two main characters and those of Hugo’s Les Miserables: an escaped prisoner and a duty-bound law enforcer. Both men stood for beliefs that they fully espoused. They held different world views that governed their actions and made them natural rivals. Did this classic tale of justice and mercy in some way influence you? And should we be concerned about plagiarism?

Very insightful! I would not be truthful if I did not admit that Jean Valjean and Javert were key role models for Daltyne and Lesse and that the cops and robbers portion of the story closely resembles that of Victor Hugo. But plagiarism? That’s a weighty accusation. My tale is not one of two principles, mercy and justice, competing against each other. Mine is a story about two men who both fought dearly for the same principle: democracy and liberty for all men. Daltyne feared that the principle had become corrupted and abused by men of power. Lesse feared that that very same principle would become corrupted if allowed into the hands of the common and ordinary. The moral to the story is that two men can be fighting for the same thing and yet be mortal enemies.

Les Miserables? There’s about as much similarity between your screenplay and this classic novel as there is between Jay Leno and Barbara Streisand—although both do have large noses. You ripped your story straight out of history! And I intend to expose your plagiarism to the media if you attempt to move forward with production. Do the names John Stokesley, Thomas Cromwell, or John Frith mean anything to you? Of course they do! And your character names?... A dead giveaway! You could have at least TRIED to hide your plagiarism.

Ok, you caught me. In publishing anything to the World Wide Web, I do take the risk that there might be some 16th Century European History majors out there who might stumble upon my blog. Then again, I really didn’t think I had that many readers out there, due to the lack of comments on my posts, so I figured I was safe. So I guess I’ll take it as a compliment that I was able to lure in a European history buff at the expense of making millions on production of The Colony.

Yes, my story is basically a futuristic retelling of a historic tale of intrigue, spies, betrayals, executions, and the smuggling of secret manuscripts forbidden by powerful governmental and ecclesiastical forces. But I do think plagiarism is a little harsh… I prefer to think of it as borrowing. But what did you expect? Did you really think my ballet wasn’t “borrowed”? Heck, half of what I say is a quote from Brian Regan!

But you were right, in that I couldn’t even muster enough creativity to come up with my own character names. Liam Daltyne is indeed an alias for William Tyndale, and Tomas Lesse is no other than the noble Sir Thomas More. At least the betrayer in my story, Henry Allen, had an original last name… oh, wait… I guess his last name came as a reference to a tool just like that of his namesake, Henry Philips. So I guess I’m about as creative as a prison break at high noon.So why would I retell the story of William Tyndale in a fictional, futuristic setting? And who were these men? Most of us aren’t 16th Century history buffs. William Tyndale, like Liam Daltyne, had a belief that the most common of men had a right to read and understand a forbidden manuscript for themselves rather than having it interpreted for them. What document was this? The Holy Bible.

Tyndale lived in a day when the Bible may as well have been encrypted in an unbreakable code. Only the most elite class of society, the priests of the church, had the learning and the authority to read from and to interpret the Latin Bible. Tradition and law demanded that the words of that most sacred of books should only be penned in the purest of languages, not the unclean tongue of the common and dirty Anglican people. This language barrier reserved the interpretation of the sacred book to the priests and to the church. William Tyndale, and many others, felt differently, arguing that every man had the right to read and hear the Bible in his own tongue so as to more fully understand the doctrines and to rely on the Spirit, rather than a man or a church, for the proper interpretation of God’s word.

And so, William Tyndale was hunted as an outlaw by Sir Thomas More, an agent of the church and of the crown. Over the many years of their rivalry, Tyndale translated and released portions of the Old and New Testament to the common people of England while More hunted him down and engaged in a written war of words with his nemesis. Their story, which seems like it was pulled straight out of a movie, is indeed much like that of Jean Valjean and Javert. Hugo’s characters both loved the law. Both were good men. But their conflicting views over justice and mercy fueled an inevitable rivalry that could only be ended by death. Tyndale and More both believed in God. Both men loved the Bible. One man felt that men should be agents unto themselves. The other had an undying testimony of the church and its authority and felt that men should be agents of God’s chosen.

So, which man was the hero and which was the villain? History seems to favor Tyndale, just as Hugo favored Valjean. Sir Thomas More executed good men and women who were only trying to seek God’s word. He was obsessed with capturing his rival. In half a million words, he wrote a Confutation of Tyndale’s teachings in defense of his church. In the end, before he could bring about the downfall of his enemy, he lost his own life at the hand of his supposed allies. And we, who look to Tyndale as our hero, cheer as the villain gets his just desserts. In contrast, Tyndale was a martyr who died for his belief and for his courageous acts for which we are greatly indebted.And so, many of us might recognize the name William Tyndale. Chances are that we dearly love and cherish some of the beautiful words and phrases that he originated. Words like Atonement and birthright and phrases like still, small voice; Ye are the light of the world; Fear not, little flock; Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil; Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith; Knock and it shall be opened unto you; and Blessed are the poor in spirit. Ninety percent of the King James Version of the Bible is William Tyndale.

But do we recognize the name Sir Thomas More? Probably not. Continuing the recognition game, how about these other words or phrases? Are we familiar with or do we even use these? Paradox, taunt, obstruction, shuffle, meeting, anticipate, monosyllable, pretext, not to see the wood for the trees, make the best of something, out of the frying pan into the fire, and a moon made of green cheese. We might not easily remember the name of their creator, but chances are we regularly say or hear these words. That means that without Sir Thomas More, instead of an iPod Shuffle, we might be jamming to our iPod Jumbles. Without More, we would only have multiple syllable words, which would make texting pretty hard. Without More, the moon might be made of red hot chili peppers instead of green cheese. However, without More there would be no obstructions holding us back in life, no paradoxes to sort out, no sibling taunting, and—best of all—no meetings to have to sit through. Sounds pretty good, right? A veritable Utopia? Hold on, there would be no Utopia without More, either--English Literature majors can back me up on that one. Believe it or not, we even sing the words of Sir Thomas More in our worship services(and I'll ask Irish Poetry majors not to back me up on this one...)!

But how can this be? In fairy tales, there’s never anything good to be said about the villain. We want to hate him. Any redeeming qualities in a villain would ruin the story for us.But let’s look a little more deeply at More, this villain, this horrible man. Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, was commanded by his king, Henry VIII, to sign his name to the Act of Succession, a document that suggested that the king was the rightful head of the Church of England. More firmly disagreed with this, owing to his firm testimony of the church’s authority in Rome, and refused to sign. His lands and estate were taken from him. He was imprisoned on charges of treason. And, finally, he was sentenced to death.

Henry knew how the people admired More. He also knew of More’s faithfulness in defending the church and seeking to protect both the church and the throne from the disorder resulting from the Reformers’ dissidence. He did not really want to put him to death. In a play called “A Man for All Seasons” which depicts this story, King Henry sent More’s wife and his daughter Meg to see him in prison, hoping that they might urge him to take the oath. More’s daughter reminds her father that he had always taught her that God regards the heart and not the words of the lips. She begs him to “say the words of the oath and in your heart think otherwise.”
Sir Thomas replies, “What is an oath but words we say to God?” He then cups his hands and continues: “When a man takes an oath, Meg, he’s holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. And if he opens his fingers then—he needn’t hope to find himself again”

Another character, a friend named Norfolk asks More, “Can’t you just do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship?”

Sir Thomas replies, “And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?”

When Sir Thomas More approached the scaffold, condemned to beheading—a more humane death than that planned for his rival Tyndale, More spoke to his accusers (and these words were truly his and not those from a movie), “I verily trust, and shall therefore right heartily pray, that though your lordships have now here in earth been judges to my condemnation, we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together, to our everlasting salvation.”

For myself, at least, I’ve now ruined this story of William Tyndale and Sir Thomas More. I can’t hate the antagonist. He may have not had the same open mind and heart that Tyndale certainly had, but he had a good mind and a tender heart, nonetheless. We hear that in his words, those spoken and those put to paper.

So I must confess. The real reason for The Colony and for the plant in my mailbag audience was to provide some context so that I could share a few thoughts about one of my favorite hymns. (Yes, that letter was a plant… there probably aren’t any 16th Century European History majors tuning in to Sermons of the Heart. Though, whatever your major, I would love to read your comments and hear your feedback.)

My thoughts about this hymn go along so nicely with the story of Tyndale and More, men who both loved their God. The words mean so much more when you can think of their author as a misunderstood villain who had such a strong testimony of his convictions that, even though he was the cause of many martyrdoms, he himself became a martyr as he gave his life for this testimony... Only, as I prepared to publish my blog, I noticed one tiny little oversight in my research. The author of this hymn is Thomas Moore. Since you're all so much more observant than me, you're shouting out, "Mike, there's an extra 'o' in there!" Me? I'm thinking something a lot less intelligent, something like 'O' @#*%! A quick search on Wikipedia confirmed that, rather than the Lord Chancellor of England, Thomas Moore was a talented Irish poet.

Well, shoot, there goes my blog for this month! With a little less wind in my sails, I'm going to salvage what I can here and push forward, since these words do indeed fit so nicely with the story of Tyndale and More. And I personally will pretend that I never saw that Wikipedia article and go on believing they originated from a knight of the Anglican empire.The hymn I’m referring to is called Come, Ye Disconsolate, and is perhaps as obscure to some as the name Sir Thomas More. We honestly don’t sing it that often. And personally, though I know the words by heart, I would have to break out my hymnbook to refresh myself with the melody. I know I’ve sung this hymn at least once. In fact, I’ve sung every hymn in the hymnbook at least once. As a teenager, we organized a Hymn Marathon and sang every verse of all 341 hymns on one Saturday. It took us many gallons of milk and juice, dozens of donuts, and over 13 hours. But we emerged victorious, voices mostly intact, and we all lived on to sing another day.

I first really encountered this hymn a few years ago on a Rob Gardner album about the Mormon pioneers. Listening to the stories of the hardships those faithful men and women overcame, I was touched to hear this hymn as something of a concluding testimony to their faith just prior to arriving at the Great Salt Lake and finally finding a new home. Rob put Anacreon Thomas Moore’s words to an original tune that I know much better than the melody in the hymnbook. The words are beautiful in their simplicity (Listen to the song here--I guarantee it's worth your time!):

Come, ye disconsolate, where’er ye languish,
Come to the mercy seat, fervently kneel.
Here bring your wounded hearts, here tell your anguish;
Earth has no sorrow that Heaven cannot heal.

Joy of the desolate, light of the straying,
Hope of the penitent, fadeless and pure!
Here speaks the Comforter, tenderly saying,
“Earth has no sorrow that Heaven cannot cure.”

Here see the Bread of Life, see waters flowing
Forth from the throne of God, pure from above.
Come to the feast of love; come, ever knowing
Earth has no sorrow but Heaven can remove.

It’s hard to not be touched when you hear a beautiful voice singing these beautiful words to a beautiful melody. And I am suddenly right there, hugging that wearied pioneer, holding Tyndale’s hand during his last few hours, and even wiping a tear after hearing Sir Thomas More’s final words to his friends. I am there because I, too, have felt disconsolate at times in my life. I, too, have felt anguish. My heart has been wounded, though, because of my natural man, it is often more of a self-inflicted injury than a war wound. We all have sorrows that need the healing touch of the Master’s hand. And just like those healing waters flowing forth from the throne of God, the Master’s love and tender mercy are in ample supply to bind up that which is broken and to strengthen that which is sick.Can you close your eyes and see that wondrous scene? Fountains of pure water flowing everywhere, a mouth-watering feast of every delicacy you could possibly imagine waiting there for you, marvelous light so brilliant and white that you can barely open your eyes, a glorious throne—a mercy seat—upon which the Savior of the World, the Bread of Life, sits beckoning to you. Can you think of doing anything but fervently falling to your knees? And then you hear the Comforter’s tender words, “Earth has no sorrow that Heaven cannot cure.”I think this scene is that wondrous place that Sir Thomas More envisioned and described to his accusers, his friends, where they might one day be merrily reunited in everlasting salvation. As More waited for the axe to fall, as Tyndale felt the flames lick at his feet, as homeless Mormon pioneers huddled in worn blankets in the snow, and as I have wallowed through the most challenging and depressing moments of my life, I think that each of us has looked Heavenward and caught a vague glimpse of this scene. And the Holy Spirit has carried the words of the Comforter to us in our extremities, “Earth has no sorrow that Heaven cannot cure.”

What wonderful words. But if you were to reread or listen again to that beautiful hymn of Thomas More, you might notice that each of the three verses ends differently. The three phrases, respectively, are, “Earth has no sorrow that Heaven cannot heal,” “Earth has no sorrow that Heaven cannot cure,” and “Earth has no sorrow but Heaven can remove.

I have often wondered about these words. Hymns often have choruses that use repetition to help drive home a principle or a doctrine. So when there are subtle differences like this, the analyst in me perks up and wants to find out why. Since I can’t go to the author for clarification, I’ve been left to my own devices and to the inspiration of the Spirit to find some meaning. And I would like to share my thoughts on this with you.

There are three key words here: heal, cure, and remove. Now I’m no expert in the healing arts, and a licensed physician might have an entirely different perspective on this. But when I think about healing, I think about herbs and poultices, casts, and medicines. To me, healing is treating the symptoms of some ailment or illness. It provides comfort and relief from pain and strength to endure the affliction. It might not necessarily treat the cause of the illness but rather focuses on treating the effects of the illness. Earth has no sorrow that Heaven cannot heal.

Curing on the other hand is more than healing. To me, finding a cure, like the cure for cancer, is more than providing chemotherapy and some other treatment to slow or to stop the spread of a disease or to even overcome the disease itself. But cancer is still an illness that inflicts countless other individuals and families in the world. One day, we hope to find the cure for this disease rather than to just heal individuals one by one.I am pretty much blind in both eyes. When I went to the eye doctor, he had me remove my glasses and cover up one eye and then asked me to read him the lowest line of letters I could see unaided. I told him I knew the top line was a single E from experience but I could not read it from this distance. He then had me slowly walk forward until that E became legible. Finally, as I hit the three-foot mark from the wall, the letter E magically became clear and I stopped. In retrospect, that experience was pretty humorous and “eye opening”, because I usually forget how dependent I am upon contacts or eyeglasses to be able to function in everyday life. These miraculous aids have literally healed me of my blindness. However, the Savior has power to completely cure man of afflictions like mine. Centuries before mankind would find a cure of its own in laser surgery, Jesus Christ showed the power of Heaven in wondrous miracles that truly and literally proved that “Earth has no sorrow that Heaven cannot cure.”

We can look to wondrous technologies like laser eye surgery to testify that medicine has come a long way in finding cures to common illnesses. Through surgery, specialists can literally extract diseased tissues and organs and cure the most complex of problems. And these cures are often lasting, in that the ailment is truly conquered and does not return. But after surgery, the patient carries with him both literal and figurative reminders of the difficult past in the physical and the emotional scars that are left behind after the miraculous transformation. So when Sir Thomas More says, “Earth has no sorrow but Heaven can remove,” I find this the most powerful promise of the three. What does this mean? No scars! No surviving effects or remnants whatsoever of the past, other than the memory of what we’ve been through which serves to remind us of how we’ve been transformed and where we’re headed. That is the greatest miracle of all!In a spirit of healing, Christ said, “Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.” Isn’t that absolutely wonderful? Elsewhere we read, “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.” From this, we learn that the blackest of sins can be completely removed as if they never were. We can drive countless nails into a post, pull them out, and the holes aren’t just filled in and patched, they are as if they never were. But we remember, and for good cause. I thank my God for the memory of my past misdeeds so that I can be a better man today because of the memory and the lessons learned. But the collateral damage and the nuclear fallout caused by an Atomic Mike are nonexistent. Earth has no sorrow but Heaven can remove.To me, there is a difference in these three words: heal, cure, and remove. I’m grateful for those differences. The Master Physician has the power and the knowledge to accomplish all three ends. But like any good doctor, Jesus Christ counsels with us and allows us to ultimately decide which course of treatment we wish to pursue.There are some patients who will elect to let the disease run its course. They’ve fought a good fight. But the difficulties and side effects of treatment to them are not worth the possibility of added months or years.

There are those who are frequenting the spiritual pharmacy, looking for home remedies and miracle drugs to ease their pain and their afflictions. Often, they find what they’re looking for and their burdens are lightened and they find the healing power of Heaven.

There are those who are looking for cures. One of my favorite quotes comes from Ezra Taft Benson, who said:
"The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature."
What does this mean? If we give our whole self to the Master Surgeon, holding nothing back, He will cut out all of the bad; He will take the good and make it better. He will change our very natures and make us the best we can be, because He will help us become even as He is. But we must first allow Him to work His miracle. With this Surgeon of Surgeons, there is no such thing as experimental surgery; but it is, however, always an elective procedure.

Finally, we must be willing to let go of the past. Christ is eager and ready to forgive. He is anxious to forget. Isn’t that great? But, as humans, though we might be able to forgive others, the very hardest people to forgive are ourselves. The Surgeon cannot remove the cancer without our consent. Again, He lets us decide how we wish to be treated. He is skilled. He will not make mistakes. There will be no scars or side effects. But this can only happen if we choose to let go and to not leave any scars of our own.

That Sir Thomas More, in his own right, was a pretty good man. Until I thought that I learned the author of this favorite hymn of mine, I found it pretty easy to vilify this “Javert” who so desperately sought to prevent the translation of my cherished King James Bible. But I’m grateful that I had the chance to learn a little more about More and to see his goodness and his humanity. And I’m grateful for this powerful lesson that he and an Irish poet have taught me.

Earth has no sorrow, but Heaven can remove. This very moment, I know which course of treatment I want for my sorrows and afflictions. The difficult part will be remembering the way I feel right now, thanks to this beautiful hymn, in those moments of trauma when I am faced with a difficult decision. Emotions and fears will get in the way, making it hard to see the wood for the trees and to remember that it is the Master Surgeon who will be my Primary Care Physician when I need Him most.
The Lord is my light; the Lord is my strength.
I know in his might I’ll conquer at length.
My weakness in mercy he covers with pow’r,
And, walking by faith, I am blest ev’ry hour.

The Lord is my light;
He is my joy and my song.
By day and by night he leads,
He leads me along.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Is Anybody There? Does Anybody Care?

Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Does anybody see what I see?
I see fireworks! I see the pageant and pomp and parade.
I hear the bells ringing out; I hear the cannons roar;
I see Americans - all Americans - free forever more!
Do these lyrics ring a bell with anyone else? This past weekend, with Independence Day falling on a Sunday, we were able to celebrate the 4th of July on the 3rd, the 4th, and the 5th of July. With each of the neighboring cities electing to shoot off fireworks and host all manner of pageant, pomp, and parade on different days over the extended weekend, I've gotten my fill of gratitude and pride for my nation. And of course, as tradition demands, I sat through nearly three hours of witty jokes and one-liners and catchy tunes from John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, in the classic musical 1776. Hands down, my favorite number from the musical is one sung by John Adams (played by Mr. Feeny for those of you who grew up with the TGIF show Boy Meets World). He sings:
They want to me to quit; they say John, give up the fight
Still to England I say 'Good night, forever, good night!'
For I have crossed the Rubicon; Let the bridge be burned behind me!
Come what may, come what may! Commitment!

I absolutely love that attitude of commitment toward a noble cause! Adams' words taken on added meaning with a brief history of the Roman Empire. In 49 BC, Roman law explicitly forbade any General from crossing the Rubicon River with a legion. This statute was intended to protect Roman citizens from internal military might. The Roman government was a conglomerate of three primary factions led by political rivals. After carrying out military campaigns abroad, General Julius Caesar, one of these rival powers, returned to Rome with his legion of active soldiers. The act of crossing the Rubicon without first disbanding his army was an act of treason and sacrilege, punishable by death--an act that began a civil war among political factions that ended with Caesar emerging as emperor of the Roman nation. Even Caesar had strong reservations as they neared the river crossing, uttering the famous saying 'ālea iacta est' (or 'the die has been cast'), and some accounts describe a supernatural apparition as the motivating force behind the ultimate order to cross.

So when John Adams sings, "I have crossed the Rubicon, let the bridge be burned behind me," I see a man who does not share Caesar's reservations. He does not need a sign from Heaven urging him to put pen to parchment and affix his name to a treasonous declaration. He was fully and unequivocally committed to the cause of freedom. And he had a vision, one that was described in the quoted lyrics above. Adams may indeed have seen millions of American men and women getting time off of work to barbecue and catch up on yard work, to proudly display flags in their yards, to stand on the side of crowded streets in the blistering July heat with happy children perched high on their shoulders laughing and pointing at clowns, horses, and marching bands, and time off to stretch out on blankets or in the back of pickups under a dark night sky to watch an ooh-and-aah-inspiring display of colorful lights and thundering sounds that never fails to raise a patriotic fervor to loftier heights. But, greater than the fireworks and bells, more important than the pageant, the pomp, and parade, he saw Americans--all Americans--free!

Free? Free to what? Free to choose our nation's leaders... free to criticize and disagree with those leaders... free to define our own governing laws... freedom to break those laws... free to say what we think, to write what we feel... free to worship the God we revere... free to share that God with others... free to gain an education, to choose our own careers, and to prosper according to our diligence and hard work... free to live where we want, to choose our own spouse, and to raise a family however we see fit... and so the list could go on and on.

Many describe the American dream as a posh job, a sporty car, a fancy house in Little Suburbia, and a growing nest egg for a comfortable retirement spent doing all those things we didn't have time to do while devoting our lives to acquiring the aforementioned American necessities. This American dream, regardless of the number of Americans who share it, is not the dream that we are collectively striving to share with the world: with those nations currently led by tyrants and dictators and with those many across the world who painfully labor for the prosperity of the few that are higher than them in the social ladder. Rather, I would like to hope that the message we carry to the world is this same vision of freedom so passionately sought after by the millions of men and women who, like Adams, sacrificed their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for the ideals and freedoms we enjoy in our nation today.
General George Washington seems to have shared this vision of freedom that would have impact across the entire world. In November 1775, seeking to motivate the colonial troops to re-enlist for another year of service, Washington delivered a powerful speech including the following:
As I have the honor to be an American, and one among the Free Millions, who are defended by your valor, I would pay the tribute of thanks, and express my gratitude, while I solicit you to continue in your present honorable and important station. I doubt not America will always find enough of her sons ready to flock to her standard, and support her freedom... [but] every friend of America will be desirous that most of the gentlemen who compose the present army may continue in the service of their country until "LIBERTY, PEACE, AND SAFETY" are established.

Although your private concerns may call for your assistance at home, yet the voice of your country is still louder, and it is painful to heroic minds to quit the field when LIBERTY calls, and the voice of injured millions cries, "To arms! To arms!" Never was a cause more important or glorious than that which you are engaged in; not only your wives, your children, and distant posterity, but humanity at large, the world of mankind, are interested in it; for if tyranny should prevail in this great country, we may expect LIBERTY will expire throughout the world. Therefore, more human glory and happiness may depend upon your exertions than ever yet depended upon any of the sons of men. He that is a soldier in defense of such a cause, needs no title; his post is a post of honor, and although not an emperor, yet he shall wear a crown--of glory--and blessed will be his memory!

The savage and brutal barbarity of our enemies... is full demonstration that there is not the least remains of virtue, wisdom, or humanity in the British court; and that they are fully determined with fire and sword, to butcher and destroy, beggar and enslave the whole American people. Therefore we expect soon to break off all kind of connection with Britain, and form into a GRAND REPUBLIC of the AMERICAN UNITED COLONIES, which will, by the blessing of heaven, soon work out our salvation, and perpetuate the liberties, increase the wealth, the power and the glory of this Western world.

Notwithstanding the many difficulties we have to encounter, and the rage of our merciless enemies, we have a glorious prospect before us, big with every thing good and great. The further we enter into the field of independence, our prospects will expand and brighten, and a complete Republic will soon complete our happiness. "Blindness seems to have happened to Britain, that the fullness of America might come in;" and we have every encouragement to "stand fast in the liberties wherewith heaven hath made us free." Persevere, YE GUARDIANS OF LIBERTY! May success be your constant attendant, until the enemies of freedom are no more, and all future generations, as they successively tread the stage of time, and taste the JOYS OF LIBERTY, will rise up and call YOU blessed.
General Washington's prophetic vision, one that was not obtained cheaply and has cost a great deal of American blood, has indeed been realized in our day. Across the world, countless millions, including myself taste the joys of liberty and rise up to call those brave men and women, who fought for this great cause, blessed. And so, in reference to this great American dream, John Adams challenges us:

Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Does anybody see what I see?

And so I take the challenge. Do I care? Can I see the vision of what our Founding Fathers were trying to accomplish? Am I doing my part to support that cause? Borrowing from the words of JFK, Am I more concerned with what my country can do for me or what I can do for my great country?

Do I care? My immediate, easy answer is, "Absolutely!" But let's put myself on the chopping block and ask this same question a few other ways:

Do I care enough to honestly study out the issues and drag myself down to the polls not just every 4 years, but every single time there is a vote? Let's just say that my track record here is not fantastic. And when I do make it down to the polls, I'm usually not as educated as I should be.

Do I care enough to suit up and depart for distant shores, should threatening circumstances warrant, and risk my life to defend my family and these ideals? Maybe... But if Lindsey actually let me go, I'd probably be a greater help on KP or on latrine-cleaning duty than I would be employing my subpar targeting skills on the front lines--I never did get either of those dang shooting merit badges!

Do I care enough to speak out on issues that are important to me, to campaign for a candidate who shares my views, or to stand up for these views even when they are unpopular? A couple years ago, when an initiative defining traditional marriage was being considered for addition into the Arizona state constitution, I actually put up a sign in my yard defending the more conservative and less popular viewpoint, one that I felt passionate about. The sign disappeared overnight. I put up another sign. And, yes, I was a little afraid for the safety of my family and the well-being of my house (which did not get egged after all). But, no, I did not do more than put up a dumb sign. With as much as I like to share an opinion, I am surprisingly quiet publically when it comes to matters of politics or items of national significance.

So, do I care? Yes. Could I care more? Absolutely! I love this time of year. Sure, I like all of the holidays--and Thanksgiving is no exception. But at Thanksgiving, my feelings of gratitude are so wide-spread and unfocused that I often end up feeling more gratitude for the turkey, the pumpkin pie, and the sport of football than anything else. So I'm grateful for other holidays when I can bring my gratitude into greater focus. I feel gratitude for my wife and family on Valentine's Day, for loved ones who've gone before me on Memorial Day, for the miracle of forgiveness on Easter, for chocolate on Halloween, and for snow at Christmastime. One of the reasons that I like this summer time of year so much is the abundance of holidays that allow me to focus my gratitude.

This week, I have the opportunity to feel the strongest feelings of appreciation for the John Adams's and the George Washington's, the Abraham Lincoln's and the John F Kennedy's, the paratroopers of Normandy and the unknown soldiers, the Nephi's and the Captain Moroni's, and the countless other men and women who have labored and fought for the freedoms we enjoy in this great land today.

Last week, I had the opportunity to reflect on the life of one man who lived in a nation that espoused religious liberties and tolerance and thus possessed the freedoms necessary to restore divine truths and authorities to the children of men under the inspiration and watchful care of a loving Heavenly Father. These liberties of speech and religion were often tested, as those who clung to these rights were often persecuted. Ultimately, this prophet suffered a martyr's fate, giving his life and defending his testimony (and his rights to believe what he knew to be true) with his own blood.

Later this month, I'll have the opportunity to remember a large populace of Saints who greatly suffered and toiled for this same cause. When these pioneers felt that these God-given and patriot-defended rights were being denied them, rather than carry out yet another bloody revolution against tyranny and oppression, they sought a land where they could truly enjoy these freedoms, for which so much blood had already been shed. Thankfully, today there are fewer religious persecutions resulting in events similar to those of Jackson County, Missouri and Nauvoo, Illinois, and the cold-blooded murder of a man for his religious beliefs, regardless how zealous or extreme they might seem to the public at large, would be prosecuted by the full arm of the law.

As I remember the declaration of American independence, the martyrdom of a prophet, and the persecution and resulting wilderness trek of an outcast people, I find myself in a time of year when I can't help but feel the humblest gratitude for freedom--above all the freedom to worship my God as I see fit--the very freedoms for which such an awful price has been and continues to be paid. And so I hang my stars and stripes proudly, I turn on my annual musical, I listen to David McCullough describe the awful, hopeless predicament of the early colonial army in 1776, I watch BYU's A More Perfect Union, and I soak in the emotion and the power of Rob Gardner's The Price of Freedom.

Can I see what John Adams saw? Yes, I think so. Do I care? Am I doing anything about it? I guess that remains to be seen. And so I take a brief moment now to climb up on my soapbox, to open my mouth, and to stand for something.

We live in a nation that bears the name The United States of America. We may informally refer to our nation as America, but, in truth, we belong to a nation of united states. Furthermore, in our governing Constitution the very first words are We the People, suggesting that ours is truly a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Any government should exist for the betterment and the regulation of its people, contributing to the peaceful coexistence of citizens, groups of citizens, cities, states, etc. All laws exist not to limit or restrict citizens but rather to help keep order. If there were only one driver in the world, there would be no need for traffic signs or speed limits.
When John Adams and the other Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, there was no federal government. If there had been no conflict among the states that emerged from the revolutionary war or no need for mutual protection, there never would have been a need for a federal government. At that time, there was a handful of colonies, each established with different traditions, religious beliefs, economies, lifestyles, and governing bodies. Each colony had shared a frustration and bitterness toward its mother country: an empire that was unfairly taxing and governing its colonial citizens, a nation that was neither of the people nor for the people. And so these colonies united, determined to reclaim the unalienable freedoms that were their God-given prerogative. Once they had claimed this freedom by victory on the battlefield, they continued on as independent, and very unique, states. There were squabbles and skirmishes over trade, conflicting laws, standing militias, and many other aspects of colonial life. The Continental Congress had been established as a means to unite the colonies during the British crisis. In the years following the war, it was apparent that another federal governing body was essential for the endurance of the fledgling nation. Thus was born the Articles of Confederation and the Constitutional Congress that led to our present system of government.

As the Constitution was drafted, there were a few major obstacles to overcome and compromises to be made. One revolved around the issue of slavery. Should slaves count as population? Should the slave trade be allowed to continue? The southern states felt that the trade was essential to their economic survival and that the federal government should not govern their economy or way of life. Many from the northern states felt strong opposition to slavery for moral or political reasons. A compromise was made. The federal government served as mediator between peoples of differing views, but the autonomy of the states was preserved. They could still govern themselves. Another major issue centered on small states and large states. States with large populations argued that they should have a stronger voice in federal matters as they comprised a larger percentage of the American populace a whole. The smaller states feared that they would not be fairly represented in congress and that their sovereignty would be lost. A compromise was made. Two legislative bodies would exist: one whose membership was based upon population and the other with equal representation. The voice of the people as a whole needed to be acknowledged, but the states deserved their sovereignty.

These compromises lead me to a few viewpoints I've recently felt very strongly about that are founded upon these very concepts upon which our nation was founded.
The first concept: one nation. The issue of balancing power between the states and the federal government is nothing new. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson often argued heatedly over this issue. Adams, a federalist, felt that the federal government should be larger and stronger. Jefferson felt that the states should govern themselves and turn to a federal government only in specific matters.

There were those among the founding fathers who felt that the responsibility of electing the President was too great for the common American and that their elected leaders should have that power. Again, a compromise was reached. The people would elect electors who would vote according to their wisdom and feeling. The electoral vote could be decided by popular vote within a geographic region, but the vote as whole would not be based upon nation-wide popular opinion. The number of electors from each state would be based upon population, but each state would maintain its voice. This system mirrors the Great Compromise of the Constitutional Congress. Again, the populace has a larger voice, but each state is represented appropriately. In the 2000 election, Bush did not have the popular vote of the nation as a whole, but in the Electoral College, he won a majority. There were those who felt this to be a travesty, in that the "we the people" of America did not get the president we wanted, and felt strongly that the electoral system should be done away with. However, considering all of the states and precincts who deserved and required a voice, the correct outcome was realized. Perhaps unknowingly, those calling for the abolishment of the Electoral College are in fact requesting that the USA drop its first two letters.

This same dilemma between the sovereignty of the states and the power of the federal government is reflected in current events today. The state of Arizona is being sued for a state law that was put into effect recently concerning illegal immigrants within that state. The federal government has laws dealing with these immigrants that are not currently being enforced at the national level. Due to a large number of crimes in Arizona among these immigrants, who are not registered citizens or contributing tax payers, a state law that is in line with those established at the federal level has been passed and is being enforced. In effect, Arizona is saying, "The national government has a law that they are not enforcing. We have an immigrant problem in our state right now that is endangering our citizens. We are going to enforce the federal law for them." Arizona is defending its sovereignty and dealing with a state problem. They are not sending all immigrants to concentration camps or suggesting inhumane or un-American action. In fact, they are not suggesting anything more than the national government has already suggested. Through the law suit, the federal government is in effect saying, "Arizona does not have the right to deal with this problem. We can enforce our own laws. The immigration problem is a national problem, and the states can wait for the problem to be dealt with on our time-table or when the enforcement of our law is politically favorable for the current governing officers."

Now the last thing I want to do is debate immigration here. I use the example to suggest the ongoing conflict between the national and state governments. One final heated political topic, which I do not want to debate, is homosexual rights. Until there is more pressing need to deal with this issue at the national level, individual states can decide for themselves how to address the issue. There is indeed a need to protect minorities. The Latter Day Saints of 1846 were a minority that was persecuted and driven from state to state for its beliefs and lifestyle. The homosexual minority, like the illegal immigrants, should not be sent to concentration camps or treated less human or less American than anyone else. I am glad that I am not a politician who has to sort out how rights and benefits might be extended to a "domestic partnership". But as an American, I do have a right to defend my personal moral views of marriage. A few years ago, a number of states debated and voted to place a formal and traditional definition of marriage as the union between man and woman in their state constitutions. In some states, liberal and activist Supreme Court justices had assumed the power of granting legal rights to homosexual marriage within those states by claiming the "unconstitutionality" of the exclusion of such. These constitutional amendments returned the power to the people as a whole to decide how to define marriage. Now someone might call me un-American to feel the way I do about the issue, to speak out, to put up a sign in my yard, or to contribute money to a cause. But, in fact, there is nothing more American than taking a stance on an issue and allowing my voice to be heard. The Founding Fathers and millions of soldiers fought for that very right, and I should be allowed to proudly exercise it. Once again, the voice of the people needs to be heard, but those voices should be heard fairly. We truly are one nation of great diversity. And compromise, trust, and understanding are essential qualities for the continuance of our nation.

The second concept: under God. I will not undertake to describe the utterly hopeless and desperate state of affairs of the continental army of 1776 against a vast and powerful adversary. Read McCullough's 1776 and you'll get a good picture. Read that book, and you may join me, Adams, Jefferson, Washington, and many, many others who feel very strongly that American independence was wrought only by divine providence and intervention. God had a hand in the creation of this nation. As Francis Scott Key penned so well in our national anthem, "And this be our motto: in God is our Trust!"

There are those today who would have us remove any reference to God from our anthem, our currency, our Pledge of Allegiance, and any other national emblem. I recognize that there are those who do not believe in a supreme being. The majority of Americans do. There may come a day, as with the Nephites of old, when the majority of our nation falls into unrighteousness and unbelief. And if that majority elects to remove God completely from our nation, I feel that it will be a sorry tribute to those men and women who founded this great country upon that trust and faith. But, in that day, it would be the right of the government of the people and by the people to do as they see fit. I pray that day never comes, for the God we abandon as a people will surely abandon the people as a whole and we will be like Sodom and Gomorrah of old, a people ripe for destruction. Perhaps in that day the Lord may say, "If I can find 50, or even 40, or 30, or 10 who still trust in me and who espouse my doctrines and principles, I will spare that nation."
But as our nation continues to forget that reliance upon divine providence, by which the founding principles of our country were forged, we are surely headed in that direction.

The final concept: indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Our nation is only as strong as its people. Many Americans, including myself, often see our country as a strong world power that will never fall. In the 1800's, under the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, many felt that this growing nation was Daniel's prophesied stone cut out of the mountain without hands that would roll forth and fill the earth. Perhaps if Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Hitler, or any other powerful commander had access to that book of prophesy, he might feel similarly. Many powerful world empires endured much longer than our nation's short 200 year history. We are far from indestructible. But we can be indivisible as long as we work together. Each American must do his part. And there must truly be liberty and justice for all. As John Adams sang, "I see Americans, all Americans, free forevermore!"

I do not believe that Daniel's prophesy was of the American nation. But I do believe that our country is and can continue to be great in our eyes and in the eyes of the world. We can be a light on a candlestick and a city set upon a hill, a people that lives what it preaches, that truly believes in liberty and freedom for all. And we can continue to share this great vision that John Adams saw with our world today. We can be the loving big brother to step in and defend our little brother from bullies. We can be a voice of reason in a disturbed world. We can be the first to aid a friend in need when unforeseen disasters strike. But for us to continue in this role, and to not fall, as did every other great world empire, it is my strong, but humble, belief that we truly must be one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. As a child, I recited this pledge daily in school. Perhaps, as a nation, we would do well to revive this dying pledge and recommit ourselves to the glorious cause of freedom.  
Let the bridge be burned behind me!
God Bless!